JUDGMENT Amreshwar Pratap Sahi and Arvind Kumar Tripathi (II), JJ. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties on the merits of the appeal after having condoned the delay. Learned counsel for the appellant has urged two points. Firstly, that the resignation tendered by the appellant was not voluntarily and secondly there is a provision namely Regulation 505 of the U.P. Police Regulations which mandates that the personnel against whom any enquiry is pending shall not be permitted to resign. 2. Having considered the submissions raised as well as having gone through the judgment of the learned single Judge, we find that the learned single Judge has categorically recorded the following finding in Paragraph 13: "13. Sequence of events noticed above clearly indicates that the petitioner submitted his resignation letter on 16th of February, 2005. An enquiry was held as to whether resignation was voluntary, or not. Concerned Circle Officer reported that resignation letter furnished by the petitioner was a result of voluntary act. On verification of the said fact, vide order dated 24th of February, 2005, resignation of the petitioner was accepted w.e.f. 28th of February, 2005." 3. This recital in the judgment could not be successfully assailed nor any such ground has been taken that the recital of the facts as noted by the learned single Judge suffers from any infirmity against records. Consequently, the resignation was given voluntarily as recorded by the learned single Judge and we do not find any material so as to differ from the said view. 4. The second submission raised by the learned counsel is not legally tenable, inasmuch as, the option in relation to the employee does not bar the authority from accepting the resignation in terms of the proviso to Regulation 505. The law is settled by this Court in the case of Ram Dhar Pandey v. State of U.P., Special Appeal No. 88 of 2004, decided on 18th July, 2012 where this Court has held as under: ".............However, the first proviso to the said provision permits the authority to accept the resignation even prior to the date of expiry of the notice, i.e., two months. In the case in hand, the resignation has been accepted by the Inspector General of Police, Research, Policy Planning, Rules and Manuals, U.P., Lucknow under whose establishment the appellant was working as Constable before expiry of two months..............." 5. In the case in hand, the resignation has been accepted by the Inspector General of Police, Research, Policy Planning, Rules and Manuals, U.P., Lucknow under whose establishment the appellant was working as Constable before expiry of two months..............." 5. It is thus clear that the authority is empowered to accept a resignation even prior to the expiry of the period of two months. We therefore, in addition to the reasons given by the learned single Judge uphold the judgment for the conclusions drawn hereinabove. There is no merit in this appeal and is hereby dismissed.